Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 18, 2013, 6:43 p.m. EST by Builder
(4202)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Has this law been discussed here already?

(quote/)The law as substantially amended in 2006 is very problematic and people should be rightfully concerned. What the law does (but this is not new) is it creates what is in essence a roving or movable zone of federal law enforcement jurisdiction around any person who is under Secret Service protection or in conjunction with a National Special Security Event (NSSE), as distinguished from a permanently fixed location. This allows for federal prosecution of persons who commit enumerated violations of the law within that zone and some of those violations read like classic protest activities.

Among other things, the law allows the Secret Service to designate what would normally be public space as a restricted area and for there to be federal prosecution of anyone who “enters or remains” in a restricted area where a person under Secret Service protection will be visiting or which is restricted in conjunction with an NSSE; or who engages in “disorderly or disruptive conduct” with the intent and effect of “imped[ing] or disrupt[ing] the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;” or who blocks entrance to or exit from a restricted area.

Certain major events are designated as NSSEs, and there are at least three on the horizon this year. They include DNC and RNC major party conventions this summer and the NATO meeting in Chicago in May. Other events that are so designated have included IMF/World Bank meetings, G-8 and G-20 meetings, the Inaugurations, and even the Super Bowl.(unquote)

The NSSE indicates that protests fit into the plan by creating something to legislate against. The protests are only needed because free speech and that of the press are a abridged. The best service they provide is to place emphasis on issues the MSM ignore.

However, that seems to only be for the sympathizers of issues while a good portion of the 99% have a diminished view of the protest itself.

Yes it's a compromise to the constitution. Occupy doesn't do constitution, they do protest. Ugh.